On 2/3/2010 3:39 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
The FSF gets to decide when to sue somebody over an assumed breach of their copyright.
And so far, the only cases have been over clear violations where GPLed code was distributed without the source being distributed along with it.
The GPL is a license. It is the sole privilege of the licensor to set the rules when the license applies. It is not the privilege of the licensor to set the rules when _copyright_ applies.
I don't understand what you mean here. The GPL purports to be a grant of extra rights beyond those allowed by copyright law. I assert that an executable program which dynamically links to libraries is not affected by the copyrights of those libraries, and therefore the licenses which apply to those libraries are irrelevant for permission to copy and distribute the executable. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
